Superman II (1980)

PG, which is kind of odd because this movie --probably because it is a product of its time --has Superman have premarital sex.  The second he becomes mortal, that's what he does.  It comes into play in Superman Returns, but it's just odd that it happens to begin with.  Also, this one is more violent than Superman: The Movie because Superman bleeds at times.  Also, way more punching.  Also, the movie seems to go out of its way to show that Lois is a smoker.

DIRECTOR:  Richard Lester

I was crazy sick all weekend.  I wasn't planning on watching anything because, being sick, I am crazy behind on all my work.  But I also needed to distract myself, so I needed to watch a movie that I knew pretty darned well that I was allowed to take breaks from.  Yeah, I don't want to get more graphic than that.

I have a tumultuous relationship with Superman II.  The first movie is precious to me.  Honestly, it might be one of my favorite movies of all time.  It never makes any lists because I acknowledge for however I might view it as perfect, it has some flaws.  But if you want me to feel good, put on the original Superman movie.  But as such a fan of the first movie, if you know anything about the creation of Superman II, you know about some crazy Hollywood drama.  For those not in the know, Superman: The Movie and Superman II were originally supposed to be filmed at the same time.  The Salkinds --who are characters in themselves --had spent an absurd amount of money on a property that no one thought would work.  They couldn't get Superman to fly right and that was only the beginning of their problems.  They knew that they wouldn't get a second chance to make a movie if the first one didn't work out, so they invested in two movies.  Anyway, apparently the Salkinds did not get along with Richard Donner, who directed the first film and --by default --a lot of the second film.  They brought in Richard Lester to finish the second film.  Lester gets the credit for the film and that seems super gross to me.  I don't harbor a lot of resentment to Lester.  He's doing a job.  But while Superman II should be a better movie than Superman: The Movie, there are things about this film that just bother me.

In terms of a story, Superman II is a superior film.  Like many superhero origin stories (even though we're dealing with the OG superhero / superhero movies here), a lot of the first film is devoted to the hero.  Often in these films, the bad guy gets ignored.  Now, I will not disparage Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman: The Movie for a second.  He's perfect.  He's not my favorite Lex, but he's the perfect casting for THAT particular movie.  It's a specific hill that I'm ready to die on.  I regularly (REGULARLY!) quote Hackman's lines from Superman: The Movie.  Often, a sequel gives the villain a bit more attention.  Such is the case with Superman II.  As much as I love Hackman's Luthor, he's a second fiddle to Superman himself.  And it's not like Superman doesn't have a story in part two.  He has a great story in this one.  It's just that the villains are given time to do what they need to to make the story engaging. 

I'm going to be honest about this.  I'm the only person on the planet who believes that the first movie is superior to the second.  I like the second one a lot, but there are just things that bug me about the movie.  In the most verbose way ever, I have to say...I don't like that the movie takes shortcuts towards filmmaking.  Now, I've had an epiphany about why this  makes sense in context.  For the longest time, it bothered me that they gave Kryptonians extra powers to make up for storytelling elements.  There's some goofy stuff in this movie, guys.  I mean, a lot of people flash to the big plastic Superman shield that traps Non.  I think even Family Guy made a joke about it.  Kryptonians can just point at things and they start floating?  That's a weird choice.  The sequels will do even more of this kind of stuff.  It really used to bug me.  

But here's how I make peace with it.  The Superman movies were a reflection of the comics at the time.  I'm pretty sure that the post-Crisis Superman (I refuse to get into what that means) happened in 1984.  The defined, clearly delineated Superman narrative first started with John Byrne was after this movie.  If you've ever read some pre-1980s Superman comics, that guy got into all kinds of shenanigans.  He had a power of the week.  There was nothing consistent with those comics from week to week (or month to month).  The fact that I got so hung up on this stuff for years just shows how petty I can be...and I tend to like everything.

So the real bummer is simply knowing the Behind-the-Scenes stuff.  That does bum me out.  It does feel like a little bit of a Frankensteined movie.  It doesn't read as smooth as the first movie and that's me complaining, especially considering that the story in Superman II is so good.  Honestly, Zod and his companions is fun.  But I really like what the movie does for the Clark and Lois story.  Sure, I don't understand why the two can't just date with Clark being immortal.  It places a lot of onus on...ahem...intimacy.  But that was something that the comics always said was fine.  Superman and Lois were in love all through those stories.  The notion that he had to become mortal was always something that this movie introduced.  Still, it is this fun narrative (that Spider-Man 2 mirrored) that Clark has to choose between his own happiness and his sense of responsibility.  It's a bit odd when Superman doesn't hear that the world is being destroyed by three Kryptonian villains, but that's something that we can leave to suspension of disbelief.  

There's no better moment for the character in the series than when they are in the Yukon hot dog joint.  See, what made Christopher Reeve the perfect Superman is that he's playing three characters that are all authentically the character.  There's Superman, who seems genuine and earnest.  He cares about everyone and is a model to society.  He's not putting on a role.  That seems like the most authentic version of himself.  Then there's Clark, who seems to be a mask.  But the funny thing about the Clark persona is that Clark is authentically awkward because he does some things that seem to be counterproductive to him being Superman.  He gets hit by a cab in this one, something that the Superman persona would never have a problem with.  The movie even addresses this when Clark's glasses go into the fire.  There's a part of the Clark persona who wants the Superman persona to be the dominant character.  But what Superman II does for Reeve is give him a third persona who doesn't get a lot of screen time.  When Clark is mortal in the hot dog joint, he's this character who is not sure who he is.  Visibly, he's Clark Kent who is in love with Lois Lane.  It's the nerd without the clumsiness.  Clark is the visible, but the moral foundation is that of Superman.  We get almost a look back to the Clark of Smallville from the first film, who knows that there's a moral good to work towards, regardless of ability.  But he's also horrified that he can't be infallible.  It's really interesting.  

But that's what makes this character compelling.  There's something Atticus Finch about this version of Clark.  When Rocky the truck driver harasses Lois, he gets into a fight with the guy, asking him to step outside.  Now, Superman gets into fights.  He's taken a hit.  (In my mind, there have been adventures between the first two films because everyone treats Superman as the norm by the second film.)  When he takes the punch, he's horrified by his own blood. But there's this look that says that he knows he can't win, but he still isn't going to give up the fight.  Now, I was about to say that I wish that the news report hadn't happened to see how the rest of the fight with Rocky would have played out.  (Obviously, Clark would have lost.  But I wanted to see the "try anyway" scene.)  But now that I'm thinking about it, Clark's next move is more telling.  When he sees that Zod has returned, he walks his way back to the fortress.  (I love how Lois doesn't drive him back.  I get that she probably drove him as far as the car would have gone, but still...) 

It's disheartening to see him wandering in the snow, but it's also what makes Superman the character he is.  What Superman II does for the character is to show that none of this is about his ego.  Again, you guys know that I'm not the biggest Man of Steel fan.  The biggest complaint about that movie is that Superman doesn't treat human life as the biggest priority.  Part of that comes from how chaotic Zod is in Man of Steel.  Okay, fine.  But Superman, in Superman II, keeps taking hits because he's making sure that no one is hurt.  The reason that Metropolis turns on Superman is that he flies away.  They all read it as Superman abandoning them when, in all reality, he doesn't want anyone hurt because of him.  Everything about this is about sacrificing the ego.  Okay, he goes back and puts Rocky in his place.  Sure.  That's just a fun moment.  But Clark learns more about what it means to be a hero and that means that his vulnerability has to be more than just kryptonite.  It's knowing that you can't be everything for everyone.

Do I wish the movie ended differently?  Yeah, that forgetting kiss is problematic in every scenario.  Even from a narrative perspective, that is a weak choice.  It feels like a get-out-of-jail free card that the movie doesn't need.  The first movie acknowledges that Clark will break the rules to achieve the over all good.  Remember that "Interfere with the course of human history bit"?  He's allowed to date Lois and let her in on the secret.  Why make her forget something that is so personal to both of them?  I know that she says that it is torturing her, but even the acknowledgment that they can be romantic without being intimate is something.  Maybe I'm putting too much thought into this.

It's still a pretty great movie, but it will never be Superman: The Movie for me.